I read Hilton Obenzinger’s ‘This Passover or the Next I Will Never Be in Jerusalem’ from my own Jewish perspective and had many questions. I wondered if Obenzinger is Jewish and if that matters. I think it does, but is that just my own protective shield going up around my group? Is this an outsider’s portrayal of all Jews at Passover, or is it a disapproving insider’s perspective of his own individual family? Why does he perpetuate the negative and ignorant stereotypes by saying that Jews “need gelt in life” or “[i]s it so bad selling rags?” What will readers think who are not Jewish? On the one hand, the ritual of walking on Shabbas is explained for those not in the know. On the other hand, will those same readers get the references to the Passover table without further explanation? The speaker asks the question, “Why is this Jew different from all other Jews?” and says, “This Passover or the next I will never be in Jerusalem”; these are explicit, but changed, references to the text read at Passover. These changes, however, are direct rejections of the tradition. Why is he different from other Jews? Or, at least, why does he feel he is different? It brings up a thematic question of belonging to a group and what it’s like to reject or disassociate yourself from that group (of course, recognizing that in some groups it’s easier to do this than in others).

What happens when “your own people” are no longer your people, when you no longer feel part of the group? The speaker in this poem “fidget[s] and nod[s] politely,” and is clearly uncomfortable, but he says at the end, “I don’t feel strange at all....” Clearly, he is strange to his family, and it made me wonder why, presumably, he has traveled from California to Brooklyn to even participate in this holiday ritual with the “clan.” What is the purpose of this tradition for him? Is it an excuse to reunite with a family that feels more and more foreign to him, but is, nonetheless, related to him if only as “long-lost relatives?” Is there still some connection for him, or when he asks himself at the end if he is the “anti-Moses,” does this imply that the connection is more about what he is not, or what he has rejected, than what he has become (a teacher, a Californian, etc.)?

Is he making a more general statement about a person disagreeing with the group with which he or she is identified? The speaker is physically present at the table, but he is a long way away, philosophically and mentally, from his people. The “Patriarch” makes statements about why Jews belong in Israel, but we can only speculate what the speaker’s disagreement is – this is not made explicit. The reader needs to fill in the blanks, but who is the reader? Is it someone sympathetic to the group (member or not) or is it someone critical of the group who might believe the stereotypes and read this poem as affirmation of his or her prejudiced beliefs?

I thought about this question when I read June Jordan’s “Poem for The New York Times Dedicated to Dr. Elizabeth Ann Karlin” and Jack Foley’s “Eli, Eli.” I wondered how Catholics, although included in the list of “billions of folks out here/Catholics/and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews and/Protestants and Atheists...,” felt about Jordan’s admonitions to the Pope, and I wondered how they felt about Foley’s writing about the problem of priests molesting children. Both of these poems bring conflict within the group to the reader’s eye. Again, does it matter to what group(s) the poets belong? And, does it matter to what group(s) the reader belongs? I agreed with Jordan’s speaker, but I also thought that I am not the target audience, if there is one (and that’s another question to be explored) since, as a non-Catholic, the Pope’s “pronouncements” are not binding on me. I found the subject and execution of Foley’s “Father O’Fondle” outrageous (not provoking outrage at the airing of this dirty laundry – daylight and fresh air can do wonders for dirty laundry), but it’s somewhat shocking to read a rhyme that includes “I’ll apply the priestly arts/To your troubled private parts” especially if you are part of the group for whom priests are agents of God.

These poems challenge the reader and may even be offensive to some, but if we read them as the poets’ expressions, then the poems are really about those expressions and not about the reader. The poet says what he or she has to say, and it should be in a form that we can understand, but once it’s out in the world, it’s possible that we’re reading it differently than it may have been intended or designed, and we have to be conscious of that possibility and what that difference may say to and about us.

Sheila Joseph